So, does this mean the ORP thinks the Elections Commission would rule in FitzGerald's favor? Well, no.

"We think it’s a clear violation of the law, but we don’t think the county should be let off the hook by having the state rule," ORP spokesman Chris Schrimpf told The Dispatch.

A Cuyahoga County ordinance prohibits board appointees from contributing to the county campaigns of their appointing officeholders. But here's the rub: The contribution was made to FitzGerald's gubernatorial campaign -- which is a state campaign, not a county campaign -- so it's not clear how a county ordinance could possibly have legal jurisdiction of a state campaign contribution.

There is even more, ahem, intrigue.

Cuyahoga County has an inspector general, and the FitzGerald campaign asks her to review all his state campaign contributions for possible improprieties. She flagged a handful of FitzGerald gubernatorial contributions that appeared to have come from county appointees, but since the Northeast Ohio Media Group first reported on all of this on Sept. 3, the IG has yet to issue a formal opinion, which is what the ORP says it wants. The ORP says "(i)t’s important for a county notorious for its corruption to show if it is capable of holding its top elected official accountable," trying to tie FitzGerald to the corrpution scandal of 2009.

They're tough dots to connect, but a question still remains: How could it be lawful for a county inspector general to review contributions to a state campaign as part of her official duties? Cuyahoga County has yet to respond to The Dispatch to answer any of the questions raised here, questions that have been asked multiple times over the last two months.